I believe it serves well to show others that crime will not be tolerated, especially in the cases where police or other government workers are murdered, but at the same time should be decreased for most other reasons.

Yes, death penalty should be rare. But I believe to make it rare we need to make it more common.

Logged

Economic Left/Right: 4.38Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.64

"We could never judge that one thing is better than another if a basic understanding of the good had not already been instilled in us."-Saint Augustine

I am aware, but some are pro-life because they believe a fetus is alive and all life should be protected and life is sacred. Also, for those who are pro-life and are religious, yet pro-capital punishment is kinda funny too.

Willingness to kill shows the 'courage of your convictions', in otherwords shows you mean what you say. Domestically this means killing criminals - personally, I can think of worse fates than being executed. Internationally, this means killing the enemy. To preserve ones life, property, and security either at home or abroad requires a willingess to shed blood. If you aren't capable of this, your enemies will rightly see you as weak and attack.

Anybody that says being pro-life and pro-capital punishment is contradictory needs to take a look in the mirror because that also means being pro-choice and anti-capital punishment is a contradiction.

Gloria Steinem explains that...

"There is a difference between a fetus that cannot survive on its own, and an autonomous human being. I find the pro-choice, anti-death penalty positions consistent because both support the value of the individual, and both oppose the state's power over the individual--whether to make decisions about our reproductive lives, or the length of our lives."

I do think that being a "right-to-lifer" and supporting capital punishment is contradictory because a right (unlike a priviledge) can't be lost and if a fetus has a 'right' to life, it can't be taken away under any circumstances.

BTW, I am definitely pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

Logged

[George W. Bush] has shattered the myth of white supremacy once and for all. -- Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY)

"George Bush supports abstinence. Lucky Laura."- sign seen at the March for Women's Lives, 4/25/04

Anybody that says being pro-life and pro-capital punishment is contradictory needs to take a look in the mirror because that also means being pro-choice and anti-capital punishment is a contradiction.

Gloria Steinem explains that...

"There is a difference between a fetus that cannot survive on its own, and an autonomous human being. I find the pro-choice, anti-death penalty positions consistent because both support the value of the individual, and both oppose the state's power over the individual--whether to make decisions about our reproductive lives, or the length of our lives."

I do think that being a "right-to-lifer" and supporting capital punishment is contradictory because a right (unlike a priviledge) can't be lost and if a fetus has a 'right' to life, it can't be taken away under any circumstances.

BTW, I am definitely pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

I would take anything that woman says with a grain of salt. Or maybe just a whole salt shaker.

Ok, so if no death penalty then make their life in prison term miserable. Meager food, no outside contact, one newspaper once a month, no TV, no library, solitary, chain gangs. If you got rid of the death penalty and instituted all of the afore mentioned then I would consider it.

Willingness to kill shows the 'courage of your convictions', in otherwords shows you mean what you say. Domestically this means killing criminals - personally, I can think of worse fates than being executed. Internationally, this means killing the enemy. To preserve ones life, property, and security either at home or abroad requires a willingess to shed blood. If you aren't capable of this, your enemies will rightly see you as weak and attack.

I think one latent assumption in the question is that we separate the nameless, faceless nuking a hundred thousand people, or sending in the marines with big guns and tanks, from the up-close and controlled personal killing of a man by a physician in front of witnesses.

What bothers me is, despite our division over capital punishment, there seems to be a consensus that life in prison should be a parade of horribiles. Rather than recognizing the necessity of prisons as an instrument of rehabilitation, we seek to degrade them, demean their dignity, oppress them, and harm them, until, yes, they will lash out against us. I am aghast that anyone would be willing to treat other humans with such stark inhumanity, and find their existence valueless. They may have committed a crime, but society does not demonstrate its superiority to a person and establish its right to judge by similar barbarism.

Logged

Economic Left/Right: -10.00Social Left/Right: -10.00

Registered in Massachusetts as a Democrat for Fantasy Elections, though now living in Rome.

True, but the reality is that nothing the state does will ever fully prevent murders. The state does not have to participate in the murduring however, particularly when there is ANY chance the state is murduring an innocent person. Better that 10 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man is imprisoned. This concept increses in significance exponentially with the death penalty in my opinion.

Logged

"The most important thing to remember is, no matter what anybody tells you, it is never, ever unpatriotic or un-American to question anything in a democracy"

True, but the reality is that nothing the state does will ever fully prevent murders. The state does not have to participate in the murduring however, particularly when there is ANY chance the state is murduring an innocent person. Better that 10 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man is imprisoned. This concept increses in significance exponentially with the death penalty in my opinion.

If you remove someone right to live you yourself should have your right to live removed.

True, but the reality is that nothing the state does will ever fully prevent murders. The state does not have to participate in the murduring however, particularly when there is ANY chance the state is murduring an innocent person. Better that 10 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man is imprisoned. This concept increses in significance exponentially with the death penalty in my opinion.

If you remove someone right to live you yourself should have your right to live removed.

We don't practize an eye for an eye for any other crimes. If you rape someone should you get raped yourself? If you steal from someone should you ourself lose your possesions? Etc...

True, but the reality is that nothing the state does will ever fully prevent murders. The state does not have to participate in the murduring however, particularly when there is ANY chance the state is murduring an innocent person. Better that 10 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man is imprisoned. This concept increses in significance exponentially with the death penalty in my opinion.

If you remove someone right to live you yourself should have your right to live removed.

1) you failed to address the question of executing an innocent person;2) gustaf is correct;3) I suppose you suggest executing drunk drivers who kill others in accidents - that would make sense using your logic. Same goes for any accident's you "cause", whether through negligence, recklessness or even bad luck.

Logged

"The most important thing to remember is, no matter what anybody tells you, it is never, ever unpatriotic or un-American to question anything in a democracy"